On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 3:17 PM, John Gilmore <g...@toad.com> wrote: >> I think that the addition of a new property in the activity.info file >> would be logical here. Make it an integer indicating the maximum >> number of supported participants. "Unshared" activities would report >> '1', activities like video chat (with technical limitations) or chess >> (with obvious player limits) might specify 2, and others could specify >> another cap based on resource requirements and/or a constant to >> indicate an unbounded number. > > If robust activity sharing is ever going to make it past the Sugar GUI > barrier, adding sharing properties to a Sugar-specific config file > will just create an issue that needs cleaning up later. Wouldn't it > be better to add a function or argument to the sharing API, that an > application can use to limit the number of participants sharing the > application? > > The world and the kids would be better off with e.g. a GNU Chess/ > XBoard that's able to share on any platform, rather than a "Chess > Activity" that only shares under Sugar.
+1. And if and when sharing is maintained upstream from Sugar, we all win... until then, we need to keep pounding away at the Sugar bits. > John > > http://www.tim-mann.org/xboard.html > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel@lists.laptop.org > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > -- Walter Bender Sugar Labs http://www.sugarlabs.org _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel